Getting the Facts Right on Social Security…CRFB responds
Dan here . . . this post is a direct response to Dale Coberly’s post. Both posts are long and complicated, so I and Marc expect further posts to tackle particular policy issues.
Getting the Facts Right on Social Security
cross posted with Committee on Responsible Federal Budget
The late Senator Moynihan once said that “everyone is entitled to his own opinions but not to his own facts.” In response to our piece, “Setting the Record Straight on Social Security,” Dale Coberly calls both our facts and our opinions “lies.” In his treatise, Coberly adds several important ideas to the discussion, but much of his piece misrepresents CRFB’s views, misattributes our motives, and asserts claims which are simply not based in fact.
We pride ourselves on our fact-based, non-partisan analysis, which Coberly calls into question in his piece. Below, we review and debunk many of his claims:
Claim #1: CRFB advocates a cuts-only solution to Social Security.
FALSE. Coberly claims that “CRFB would like you to believe the only solution is to cut benefits,” that we only “pretend to be open to revenue enhancements,” and that our Social Security Reformer “is rigged so you can’t give the correct answer [of gradually raising the payroll tax rate].”
This claim is nonsense. The blog clearly states that a reform “could increase revenue coming into the system, slow the growth of benefits being paid out, and even offer some targeted benefit enhancements to those who truly need them” – and we have said this consistently over the years. In fact, our do-it-your-self Reformer offers users a number of different revenue options to choose from and lets users increase the payroll tax rate by whatever amount they wish (it’s true we don’t have the functionality to adjust the phase-in rate of tax or benefit changes, which we hope to include in a future version). In addition, the two plans we repeatedly cite in our blog – Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin – both propose a mix of revenue and benefit changes, and a separate plan developed by CRFB President Maya MacGuineas along with Jeff Liebman and Andrew Samwick relied heavily on revenues as part of a solution, which also included targeted benefit enhancements.
Claim #2: CRFB wants to turn Social Security into a welfare program.
FALSE. Colberly claims that our goal is to “turn Social Security into a welfare program by means testing” and that “CRFB would tax you to pay for benefits that only ‘the deserving poor’ would receive after careful examination to be sure they were poor enough to ‘deserve’ welfare.”
This claim also has no basis in fact. CRFB takes no position on whether benefits should be means-tested and nowhere in our entire blog do we propose means-testing benefits in any form. The plans we reference – Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin – do make the benefit formula more progressive, but they still maintain a link between contributions and benefits received.
In fact, our only mention of the concept is to warn that those who support eliminating the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes must make a choice between offering huge benefit increases to the rich and means-testing benefits for that group; this may be an unattractive choice for progressive supporters of social insurance.
Claim #3: Social Security’s Finances Could be Solved by Raising the Payroll Tax 0.1 Percentage Points Per Year Until It’s Increased by 2.7 Percent
HALF TRUE. Coberly argues that we need not worry about Social Security’s finances because raising the payroll tax rate by only 0.1 percent per year would make the program solvent, until it’s increased by 2.7 percent. It’s true that solvency can be maintained by increasing the payroll tax by 0.1 percentage points a year, but the ultimate increase would have to be far in excess of 2.7 points percentage points.
Indeed, to make Social Security solvent for 75 years, the payroll tax would have to be raised by 0.1 percentage points per year for the next 40+ years – by over 4 percentage points in total. In other words, the payroll tax rate would ultimately have to be increased by one-third. And achieving sustainable solvency would require an additional decade of increasing the payroll tax rate, ultimately raising the payroll tax rate by 5 percentage points – from 12.4 to 17.4 percent. (As we explain in claim #4, the reason this increase is so much higher than Coberly claims is related to the real cost of waiting to implement savings.)This increase, importantly, would apply to all workers, including the very poor. Increasing the payroll tax is a legitimate policy option that should be part of the debate, but many progressives would be concerned with large tax increases on low-income workers in order to finance the rapid continued growth of retirement benefits, a good share of which goes to the wealthiest seniors.
Claim #4: There is No Cost to Waiting to Reform Social Security
FALSE. Coberly calls our claim that delaying action on Social Security has costs “a lie,” positing that “waiting will not lead to increased costs or deeper cuts. It would [only] lead to a steeper rate of increase.”
Coberly is mistaken. As Doug Elmendorf, director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office recently stated in testimony before Congress “there is certainly a cost to waiting….the longer one waits to make changes, the larger the changes need to be and the more abruptly they would need to take effect.”
Not only does it mean any tax increases or benefit cuts will be steeper, but it literally means they will need to be bigger in magnitude. This is true for at least two reasons. First, waiting will mean that there are fewer total people to share in the tax increases or spending cuts – that means more increases/cuts per person. Secondly, the longer we wait, the less money is in the trust fund and the less interest it will generate.
Although Coberly suggests that the actuarial deficit of 2.7% of payroll over the next seventy five years could be closed by gradually implementing a 2.7% increase in the payroll tax over twenty plus years, the 2013 Social Security Trustees report clearly states that in order to make Social Security solvent for 75 years, “revenues would have to increase by an amount equivalent to an immediate and permanent payroll tax increase of 2.66 percentage points.” (emphasis added) In a paper on this topic, we showed that what could be solved with a 16.5 percent across-the-board benefit cut today would require a 19 percent cut if we wait a decade and a 23 percent cut if we wait two decades. Similarly, the 2.7 percentage point increase in the payroll tax needed to close the 75-year gap today would be 3.3 points if we waited until 2023 and 4.2 if we waited until 2033.
Claim #5: Social Security Does Not Really Run a Deficit
MOSTLY FALSE. Coberly calls our claim that benefits exceed payroll tax revenue “a clever lie” because we do not (but should) count assets from the trust fund as revenue. Specifically, he argues that “the revenue from previous payroll taxes … were saved exactly in anticipation of the higher costs that Social Security is facing today. It’s as if you saved up money in advance to pay for your Christmas shopping, and then, when December comes, the CRFB runs around telling your neighbors you are bankrupt because you are ‘spending more than you are taking in.”
Here, Coberly confuses the flow of funds with the stock of funds. If an individual, business, or government spends more than they take in, they are running a deficit. If an individual, business, or government spends more than they have, they are in debt. We never claimed Social Security was in debt, but it is running a large cash deficit – totaling about $75 billion in 2013 alone. Notably, Social Security is still running a small surplus when interest is included, but even that surplus is expected to disappear in a few years; and most analysts prefer to focus on cash flow.
Don’t believe us? Ask Social Security’s own Trustees who say that “for both the OASDI and HI [Medicare] programs, the Trustees project annual deficits for almost every year of the projection period” or the Congressional Budget Office who explains that “in 2012, outlays exceeded noninterest income by about 7 percent, and CBO projects that the gap will average about 12 percent of tax revenues over the next decade.”
As for the suggestion that we’ve saved money for the current deficits, Coberly’s metaphor simply doesn’t match since (unlike Christmas) these deficits are not a temporary event. The more comparable situation would be if an individual saved money every year of his 20s and then decided to spend more than he earned for the remainder of his life. In his 30s, he might be able to rely on past savings to make up the difference, but that money will dry up soon. In the case of Social Security, that will likely happen in the early 2030s; and when the trust fund runs out, our revenue will only cover about three-quarters of our spending.
Claim #6: Social Security’s Deficit is Due to the Payroll Tax Holiday CRFB Advocated
FALSE. Coberly states that, “Another reason CRFB can say the cost of benefits are ‘well in excess of revenue from payroll taxes’ is that recently the friends of CRFB persuaded the politicians to ‘cut payroll taxes’ to provide a stimulus to the economy.”
In fact, the payroll tax holiday has nothing to do with Social Security’s trust fund or deficit. The revenue loss was made up for with a general revenue transfer that is not included in the $75 billion cash deficit we cite. The Office of Management and Budget noted that “general fund transfers…substitute[d] for the payroll tax revenue lost by the payroll tax reduction, so that the balances of the Social Security trust funds are the same as they would have been in the absence of the legislation. As a result, the payroll tax reduction did not impact the long-term solvency of the trust funds.”
Moreover, CRFB did not advocate for or against a payroll tax holiday. It’s true we do have many friends that supported the payroll tax holiday (along with some progressive organizations who disagree with us on Social Security), but we also have many friends that opposed the payroll tax holiday. The assertion that CRFB advocated for a payroll tax holiday as part of a plot to undermine Social Security has no basis in fact.
Claim #7: Social Security Does Not Add to the Budget Deficit
MOSTLY FALSE. Coberly claims that CRFB is trying to confuse readers by suggesting that Social Security is currently adding to the federal budget deficit. Yet if we are trying to confuse the reader, so too is the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the President’s own Office of Management and Budget.
As we’ve explained before, there are two ways to look at Social Security – as its own isolated program and part of the broader budget. There are also at least two ways to measure the federal budget deficit – by looking at the “on-budget deficit” and by looking at the “unified budget deficit.” Social Security does not add to the on-budget deficit. But most economists, analysts, reporters, and politicians prefer to look at the unified deficit. And here, Social Security is – net of its payroll taxes – contributing to the deficit.
Note that this unified view has been used to describe the deficit reduction generated in both the Affordable Care Act and the Senate-passed immigration bill.
Claim #8: Social Security is a way for workers to save their own money.
MOSTLY FALSE. In attacking the idea of means-testing, Coberly asserts that Social Security “is a way for workers to save their own money, protected from inflation and market losses, and insured against personal misfortune. That is, it is protected by the government, but not paid for by the government.”
This assertion shows a misunderstanding of how the Social Security program works. Social Security is a government program in which the government collects payroll taxes and then pays benefits to seniors, disabled workers, and their dependents. Some view Social Security as just another government program, others view it as a publicly-administered (and mandated) social insurance policy, but no serious analysts view Social Security as a true savings program.
For one, payroll tax contributions are not set aside in a savings account or even a pooled fund of savings; they are used to pay current benefits. Additionally, benefits are not determined based on payroll tax contributions – they are determined by applying a progressive formula to wage history that assures higher lifetime earners receive more in nominal benefits than lower earners, but less as a share of their salary. It’s true that Social Security does have a few things in common with a system of forced savings – it reduces the amount a worker can spend now and provides more resources later – but the program is not a “way for workers to save their own money.”
Claim #9: The question of whether past surpluses have been saved in an economic sense is an irrelevant issue invented by CRFB to justify benefit cuts.
FALSE. Coberly suggests that “CRFB would have you believe the United States of America cannot pay back the money it borrowed because it ‘did not save’ that money ‘in an economic sense.’”
Actually, we specifically explain that the budgetary impact of Social Security’s shortfalls exist “regardless of whether past surpluses were saved in an economic sense or not,” and none of our critique focuses on that question. Nor do we suggest that the Treasury cannot pay back the money it borrowed from the Social Security system. We simply pointed out that the government will need to borrow money from the private sector to cover Social Security’s cash shortfalls.
Although barely mentioned in our blog, it is widely accepted that the existence of trust fund balances has no bearing on the ability of the government to pay benefits unless the past surpluses were saved in an economic sense. The Analytical Perspectives volume of President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget stated, “The existence of large trust fund balances, while representing a legal claim on the Treasury, does not, by itself, determine the Government’s ability to pay benefits. From an economic standpoint, the Government is able to prefund benefits only by increasing savings and investments in the economy as a whole.”
The question of whether Social Security’s surpluses have led to an increase in savings in the rest of government is a hotly debated one in the economic community. If it has, it could be argued that the government is better-equipped than it would otherwise have been to pay back Social Security benefits. If it hasn’t, it means that the Social Security program is ultimately leading to higher net borrowing than would otherwise be the case. But either way, in the here and now, the federal government has to borrow more on the open-market to finance Social Security deficits than if the program were in balance.
Claim #10: CRFB Advocates Cuts to Means-Tested Programs and Doesn’t Care About Investing in Future Generations
FALSE. Coberly calls our claim that raising revenue for Social Security might leave less money for investments and younger generations disingenuous, suggesting that “these are the people cutting food stamps (for children) in order to fund investments … in the next dot.com bubble or housing finance fraud.”
This is false. The deficit reduction plans we cite in our piece – Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin – specifically take most low-income support programs off the table. Neither includes reductions to food stamps, welfare, SSI, or related programs.
It is irresponsible to look at Social Security in isolation without considering the impact that meeting its financial obligations will have on our ability to meet other needs. The Congressional Budget Office and other non-partisan analysts have made warnings similar to ours that the rapid growth in spending on entitlement programs and interest on our debt will squeeze out other government spending. Much of our concern about the growth of entitlement programs and deficits is motivated by our view that unchecked growth of entitlement spending will harm the economy and the living standards of future generations by squeezing out spending on programs that invest in the future.
And the claim that Social Security competes with other programs is not just theoretical. The recent budgetary discussions show just how concrete the competition is. Both sides entertained adopting the so-called Chained CPI, which would have slowed Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) and other inflation updates in the budget and tax code to the actual rate of inflation, in order to replace part of sequestration. Because this and other changes were not adopted, most of sequestration is being allowed to take place, leading to large reductions in programs like Head Start, health and scientific research, low-income housing assistance, primary education, and job training.
Despite Coberly’s efforts to dismiss our warnings, the reality is that numerous non–partisan analyses confirm that Social Security is facing serious financial problems that adversely affect both the ability of the program to meet future obligations and the federal budget as a whole. We can and should have a vigorous debate about the best mix of policies to address this problem. But that debate should be based on an honest recognition of the facts regarding Social Security’s financial condition.
Slight correction: numerous “non-partisan” neoliberal analyses. Just doing the same bad analysis over and over again doesn’t make for real analysis, just like re-iterating talking points doesn’t make for a new discussion
Carolannie
i agree. i have replied to CRFB. a short hopeful version. and a longer not so hopeful version. they should appear hear presently.
Perhaps a separate post and comments on each “Claim” is in order.
Jerry, this is designed to be a starting point for a continuing discussion. Those posts will come. But a taste. Here is CRFB’s response to Dale’s claim that Social Security ‘doesn’t contribute to the deficit’:
“As we’ve explained before, there are two ways to look at Social Security – as its own isolated program and part of the broader budget. There are also at least two ways to measure the federal budget deficit – by looking at the “on-budget deficit” and by looking at the “unified budget deficit.” Social Security does not add to the on-budget deficit. But most economists, analysts, reporters, and politicians prefer to look at the unified deficit. And here, Social Security is – net of its payroll taxes – contributing to the deficit.”
Well fair enough. Except that per the “unified budget deficit” as “preferred” by most most economists Social Security is currently contributing SURPLUSES.
Now there are economists like Larry Kotlikoff that insist on using a THIRD definition of ‘deficit’, one that to be fair enough is also reported by CBO as a SUBSIDIARY number to their topline ‘unified budget’ and ‘on budget’ deficit numbers. This third ‘deficit’ would measure ‘cash flow’ by discounting interest earnings on the current Trust Fund to zero and so measure ‘deficit’ by ‘Income excluding interest’ vs ‘Cost’.
But nothing in the CRFB text cited would lead anyone to understand that they are in saying that Social Security ‘contributes to the deficit’ that they are not in fact using EITHER of the two ‘deficit’ measures they highlight but a third unstated one. As such it is something like projection to deem this claim ‘Mostly False’. Tuquoque CRFB, Tuquoque.
Reading further CRFB attempts to rebut my argument above in #5 as follows:
“Here, Coberly confuses the flow of funds with the stock of funds. If an individual, business, or government spends more than they take in, they are running a deficit. If an individual, business, or government spends more than they have, they are in debt. We never claimed Social Security was in debt, but it is running a large cash deficit – totaling about $75 billion in 2013 alone.”
Well it is not Coberly who is confused here. CRFB has discounted an important flow of funds into Social Security, that of interest on Trust Fund assets, to zero. Now there are arguments (specious ones) that one shouldn’t count interest earnings as ‘real’ but in the real world there has never been a question that such earnings would be paid out in cash by Treasury as needed and indeed a portion of the Disability Insurance benefits that with OAS make up Social Security have been paid since 2005 IN CASH by INTEREST on the holdings of the DI Trust Fund. In fact in recent years the DI Trust Fund has been redeeming its Trust Fund assets (often known by critics as ‘Phony IOUs’) similarly IN CASH.
Now there is an argument as to why interest payments paid by Treasury IN CASH to meet the gap between tax revenues and benefits for the DI program should not be included in a metric here called by CRFB ‘cash deficit’ but it would be nice to have that spelled out a little. Because what is really happening is that CRFB is translating a specific technical term used by the Trustees ‘income excluding interest’ as ‘cash’ while silently ignoring the fact that a portion of DI benefits since 2005 and OAS benefits since 2012 have been met by tapping interest on the various Trust Funds IN CASH. That is credits for accrued interest that would have gone to the DI Trust Fund in the form of newly issued Special Issue Treasuries were instead used by Treasury to issue checks and bank transfers that beneficiaries were able to convert to cash without question.
And frankly the closest thing to a cash equivalent we have is a check from Treasury. They cash. Torturing the language to explain that the portion of these DI checks which were funded by interest and which are fully convertible to cash at the recipient’s bank are not ‘really’ to be counted in ‘cash flow’ is maybe not a ‘lie’ as defined. But it is to privilege a certain assertion in re ‘Phony IOUs’ that it not actually grounded in law or historical practice. Cato, AEI and CRFB may argue that Special Treasuries backed by Full Faith and Credit of the United States are for some rhetorical purposes properly to be dismissed as ‘Phony’. Well fine. But Treasury doesn’t see it that way and treats those Securities as full cash equivalents both for internal accounting purposes and for paying benefits as needed.
Adding to both the replies of Dale and Bruce concerning the issue of a “unified budget” and the on-budget/off-budget status of Social Security, I reiterate. Based on the current legislation, the law, there is no unified budget. Social Security is off budget. The two budgets, Social Security and the general budget, are to be referenced as individual accounts. There is a purpose to that legislation. It is, or was, intended to clarify the financial status of each budget. The unified budget had a legal status for only a brief period from about 1967 to 1985. Otherwise there is no legal basis for lumping the accounts as one. Unless, of course, one wants to confuse the public regarding the deficit and debt and how each can be addressed. Neither can be controlled via adjustments to Social Security.
We’ll Jack is right. BUT
When CBO scores such things as ACA or gives a number for THE budget deficit for FY whatever and puts a number to it which is then reported I the MSM that number is almost always sum of ‘on budget’ and ‘off budget. You can argue me rightly that under law there is no longer any such thing as a ‘unified budget’ but the number most often used in budget reporting is a combined one that mirrors what ‘unified budget’ would be if there was such a thing.
That is when you turn on the news and hear that Obama inherited a ‘deficit’ of $1.4 trillion but now is overseeing one of around $650 billion you should know that in both cases the Social Security deficit/surplus was included. It just is. The problem for CRFB is that for the purposes of that top line number, itself almost universally used by Congress and the media, that Social Security still scores as being in surplus.
Now you can for special pledging purposes say that this universally used number is not the right one and that one should instead use a number that does not include Trust Fund interest, whether taken partially in cash or entirely as new Special Issues as being ‘revenue’ for calculating THE federal deficit/surplus. But claiming that this third number is somehow the ‘Real’ deficit is just dishonest special pleading.
I notice that there are no comments on the CRFB site crossposting this piece. Any “debate” or “discussion” between CRFB and AB is going to have this asymmetric character. A lot of what happens at AB is in the comments rather than in the posts.
I admit I would find a certain satisfaction in picking at the above list of claims, but I don’t think they are really the most important things to address. Rather:
1) There really are people who want to destroy SS.
2) There is a real problem with SS finances, and it is there because people are living longer.
3) It does make sense to solve SS finances independent of other programs.
4) Any “fix” to SS that reduces benefits will increase the amount each SS participant needs to deal with on his own.
5) The NW plan is a permanent fix and it is affordable.
Arne
thanks. I agree. I was afraid that extending equal time to CRFB would not result in their extending equal time to us.
I have written a very long reply to CRFB. But I would rather work with them on the basis that they HAVE agreed that a one tenth of one percent increase per year in the payroll tax for each the worker and the employer entirely solves the Social Security “problem.” All else follows from this. And they seem to have admitted it in their reply to me.
Bruce
I would never suggest that the dishonesty of the argument is one sided. Republicans, Democrats and both of their apparatchik use what ever information they can to support their specific point of view and ideological argument. The Republicans and conservatives in general simply have a much better organized group of deceivers to push their specific agendas.
The fact remains that when we hear of the unified budget or when the concept is used in weighing the cost of any budget item it is dishonest.
It’s not the law. The law sequesters the Social Security funds for good reason. The efforts to present budgetary issues within a frame work of a so called unified budget is what the legislation of 1985 was attempting to correct. The CBO is just one more part of the political class and I’d venture to guess that those it employs know where their bread is buttered.
Marc Goldwein:
I am going to take exception to this comment:
“As Doug Elmendorf, director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office recently stated in testimony before Congress “there is certainly a cost to waiting….the longer one waits to make changes, the larger the changes need to be and the more abruptly they would need to take effect.”
By no stretch of the imagination is Douglas Elmendorf the CBO Director non-partisan which would cause the CBO to be partisan in his explanation. This can be noted in his discussions concerning Medicare and Medicaid crowding out necessities which was later rebutted by Louise Sheiner and Glen Lafollette “An Examination of Health-Spending in the United States : Past Trends and Future Expectation” http://www.bancaditalia.it/studiricerche/convegni/atti/fiscal_sustainability/session_3/Follette%20Sheiner.pdf. Douglas later asked for exparte conversation with Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism concerning the reporting of his gaffe on healthcare spending. If need be, you can see his request for a private conversation on Naked Capitalism or I am sure she would respond to you if you asked her of the request.
Elmendorf also supports Fair Market Valuation of Student Loans in support of Jason Delisle of The New America Foundation and Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation. While the New America Foundation is supposedly centrist in its view, the Heritage Foundation is inherently neo-con in its view. Student Loans in the manner that they are written are inherently roach motels. Students can sign into them; but, they can not escape unless they die, become disabled, become destitute, or escape some through public service. 25 years is required of poverty and even then it becomes income. Yet, Mr Elmensdorf the same as the Jasons assigns a degree of risk to student loans which make money even when they are defaulted upon.
I would not use Douglas Elmendorf as a non-partisan expert as he is not non partisan.
Anyone who knows about Simpson of Simpson Bowles knows he is partisan in support of the moneyed interests in the US.
I think the only part of the deficit that carries any importance is the portion that contributes to the debt. The debt, after all, is what we have to pay back. On budget or off budget be damned. It doesn’t matter.
It only matters if it increases the debt…and Social Security does not increase the debt, nor (and this is even more important) can it reduce the debt.
Jerry unfortunately that too depends on what you mean by “debt”.
Social Security assets of $2.8 trillion are by another way of measuring about 20% of the $13.7 trillion of Public Debt/Debt Subject to the Limit.
It is a point I make over and over. The relation of the words ‘debt’ ‘deficit’ and ‘liability’ in relation to Social Security don’t always line up with what either common sense or even certain knowledge of budget law/rules would lead you to believe.
A fact by the way that people like these guys at CRFB and Biggs at AEI are perfectly willing to exploit. When there are three perfectly defensible uses of the word ‘deficit’ in Federal Budget reporting it is easy to slide from a table measuring one to a figure measuring another and then reacting with indignation when the discrepancy is pointed out. I mean if CBO calls X a ‘deficit’ and SSA calls Y a ‘deficit’ and CBO and SSA are talking about the same overall budget then obviously X = Y. Well no. In fact it is not even the case where CBO calls X a ‘deficit’ and Y a ‘deficit’ in the same publication that X always = Y. In each case you have to read the footnotes and text carefully to see which ‘deficit’ is being discussed in each.
Let’s say the government needs to borrow $100 billion. It gets $20 billion from SS and $80 billion from China. The debt goes up by $100 billion. If the $20 billion was not available form SS, the government would have borrowed $100 billion from China. The debt goes up by $100 billion.
SS did not cause an increase in the debt. It was a source of loaned money, not a source of debt.
jerry
back in the day when even I was too young to smoke, there was a cigarette that had as it’s slogan
sung to music: “Winston Tastes Good Like a Cigarette Should!”
eventually they made fun of themselves with a TV commercial in which
The attractive couple is lighting up their cigarettes while walking down the campus path on their way to his place or hers, laughing and singing the Winston jingle “Winston tastes good like a…”
Meanwhile the gray haired guy in the tweed jacket.. a professor if i ever saw one… who has been coming up the path behind them while they are lighting up reaches them and interrupts: “AS… as cigarette should!” he insists. They all laugh together and the professor lights up. Fade to dark and the voice over says “What would you rather have, good grammar or good taste?!”
Well, Bruce is a college professor if I ever saw one. He has a take on “debt” and “deficit” that no one can understand but himself. It is no doubt “good grammar” but it is not good taste. You are right about the debt, and I am afraid Bruce and the “experts” are wrong… however they define the words in their special language. But, hell, lighten up, light up. Have a Lucky!
Or not. Please keep clarifying that SS does NOT contribute the “the deficit” or “the debt” in any way.
Except of course in the sense that if I borrow money from you , you have contributed to my debt. And if I paid you back, you would be contributing to my deficit… the way “I” (us budget experts) define the words.